Update registry credentials

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a valuable behavioral constraint beyond those: the address is immutable and acts as the identifier, so updating it requires a different workflow. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The first states the core operation, and the second delivers the critical exception and alternative in exactly the right place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool, the description plus a fully covered input schema is largely complete: scope selection, address immutability, credential fields, and confirm_token are all documented. It could theoretically say more about prerequisites or side effects, but annotations and schema already carry most of that burden.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema thoroughly documents all parameters, including the conditional confirm_token requirement and scope-specific IDs. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Changes the username or password') on a specific resource ('a registry entry'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from delete/re-create by noting that the address is the identifier and cannot be changed. This makes it clearly separable from sibling tools like create_registry and delete_registry.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear context for when to use this tool: when updating credentials. It also gives an explicit when-not and alternative: if the address needs to change, delete and re-create instead. It does not enumerate all sibling tools, but the credential-update intent is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.